I think KG wrote this in vector notationTorque is defined as:= r x F; in that order it would be ft-lb, but it would have to have the same meaning (quantity) if reversed to read lb-ft.![]()
I think KG wrote this in vector notationTorque is defined as:= r x F; in that order it would be ft-lb, but it would have to have the same meaning (quantity) if reversed to read lb-ft.![]()
Seadaddler,Sand and new bottom paint and changed 2 thru hulls and replaced all the backing plates.
You sir are an over achiever! You make the rest of us sailors look bad. Cease and desist sir!Aww, come on Kermie! Don't get frustrated. Not to pile it on or anything but while rebuilding the boat I also re-read all the 737 manuals and am learning Japanese (for the new job), and I built 3 model airplanes.
Mark
Having thought about this I conclude that reversing the cross-product notation to read "lb-ft" would have no meaning here, or possibly elsewhere, b/c the application of torque for most practical purposes is uni-directional; i.e., toward tightening. No one would care much about the torque required to back-out a bolt except, perhaps, when breaking it free initially. It reminds me of division by zero. (But a marine-application exception might be a pair counter-rotation outboard engines to balance torque effects? Even so, both props would be driving forward, or in the same direction.)I think KG wrote this in vector notation, where he shows the cross product...r cross F, and resultant T is found by right hand rule...Fxr gives opposite direction for the torque vector... I was awake one day in physics class, about 40 years ago.